**Verdict watch weekend discussion thread** 3/3-4/2012

Status
Not open for further replies.
I saw that someone had been kind to post the jury instructions that were read to this jury by Judge Stephens. I cannot find that now. I thought it was in yesterday's thread early on. I also can't find it in the legal thread. I could be missing it for sure.

I wanted to go back and re-read a part of it. I thought I read something to the effect of: "JY not speaking to LE before, during or after the investigation cannot be held against him. Though this does not include talking to family/friends about the investigation before, during or after the investigation.."

**Now, let be clear that quote above is NOT in the jury instructions. It is my attempt to try to remember what this particular part said and describe it to you, so if anyone knows the part I talking about or if you have seen where the jury instructions are posted would you be kind enough to point me in the right direction? I'm talking about the specific jury instructions this jury received and not just the general outline. thank you to anyone that knows. :)

moo. moo. moo.

http://www.wral.com/asset/specialreports/michelleyoung/2012/03/02/10805059/juryinstructions.pdf

http://www.wral.com/specialreports/michelleyoung/video/10805888/#/vid10805888
 
Oh, we was very interested in the investigation ----very interested in staying quiet so hopefully he would not be arrested. I thought it was funny he told Kim the investigation may last 2 years and he would be home free. Turns out it was 3 and he is about to go down.


Capture2-2.jpg

Capture-50.jpg

Exactly ... we all know that if he was interested in the investigation, he did not need to talk with police to get updates.
 
Exactly ... we all know that if he was interested in the investigation, he did not need to talk with police to get updates.

Well otto, I would not feel the same as you and Jason.
I would be like Meredith and Linda (had the same news reports) and call on a regular basis because I cared.
 
Well otto, I would not feel the same as you and Jason.
I would be like Meredith and Linda (had the same news reports) and call on a regular basis because I cared.

We've seen in a number of other investigations that police do not release privileged information to the family in order to protect the integrity of the investigation. Contacting police is useful in terms of keeping police actively involved with the case, but not for getting "privileged" information.

Jason didn't need to contact police to keep them on the case, he knew that they were on the case and we all know that Sheriff Donnie Harrison had a picture of Michelle on his desk at work; that he was not going to stop investigating until he had his man.
 
From what I remember of that testimony, they couldn't tell the dates since the search history had been deleted. They found the searches in the deleted files.

(that confused me since in the Orlando trial, they had dates on the search history of even the deleted files)

That confuses me too, Talina. Like you said it was in the Anthony trial but I have also seen other trials where the computer forensic expert could find the date of the searches even when it had been deleted.:waitasec:

So when did Michelle mention the accident in her email?

IMO
 
Medical personnel would have had to testify as to the type of patients at the hospital, and we didn't hear any testimony from hospital employees.

Here's a crazy coincidence ... my daughter was on her way over here but I just learned that she witnessed a hit and run so she's delayed. If she searches the injuries on the net and then her husband turns up dead, I hope that doesn't make her look guilty.

Did she take out 4 mil life insurance? Does she have affairs and lie? Does she have a volatile relationship with him. Does she plan on tracking blood in her shoes with a distinct sole pattern? Does she plan on staying in a hotel that just happen to have the cameras disabled? Does she plan on propping 2 doors open so there wont be a record of her keycard? Does have not one single friend willing to testify that they believe her innocent?
 
The defense team contradicted their own witness testimony, jason young at the first trial, that michelle young didn't, after all, give the hush puppy shoes to goodwill and they were in the closet. The real killer decided to wear them after the murder.

Yeppers, glee - The Real Killer did wear those shoes, didn't he??
 
She didn't testify to anything about the accident. You're correct in that we have confirmation that the accident occurred because of Michelle's emails. The prosecution had to have known this, yet they attempted to present the computer searches as proof that Jason was planning a murder.

I am getting confused. So does the State think he meant to come there and strangle Michelle and something went wrong or he planned all along to beat her with a blunt object in her head?

IMO
 
We've seen in a number of other investigations that police do not release privileged information to the family in order to protect the integrity of the investigation. Contacting police is useful in terms of keeping police actively involved with the case, but not for getting "privileged" information.

Jason didn't need to contact police to keep them on the case, he knew that they were on the case and we all know that Sheriff Donnie Harrison had a picture of Michelle on his desk at work; that he was not going to stop investigating until he had his man.

So true.... My BF's nephew is missing in TX and has been for a month.... 2 wks ago they found his clothing, shoes & wallet on the river bank.... When his mother calls for information they give her very little info if anything... A few days ago she called & she was told they had leads... She asked if they could tell her what.. He said he couldnt tell her anything.. So she asked well will you call me & let me know whats going on.. He said no NOT unless her son was found...
Come to find out they lied to her saying they had searched the by plane... She meets with Texas EquuSearch & Tim Miller Tuesday....
 
So true.... My BF's nephew is missing in TX and has been for a month.... 2 wks ago they found his clothing, shoes & wallet on the river bank.... When his mother calls for information they give her very little info if anything... A few days ago she called & she was told they had leads... She asked if they could tell her what.. He said he couldnt tell her anything.. So she asked well will you call me & let me know whats going on.. He said no NOT unless her son was found...
Come to find out they lied to her saying they had searched the by plane... She meets with Texas EquuSearch & Tim Miller Tuesday....

Oh my goodness. I hope they find him soon.

How sad.
 
I saw that someone had been kind to post the jury instructions that were read to this jury by Judge Stephens. I cannot find that now. I thought it was in yesterday's thread early on. I also can't find it in the legal thread. I could be missing it for sure.

I wanted to go back and re-read a part of it. I thought I read something to the effect of: "JY not speaking to LE before, during or after the investigation cannot be held against him. Though this does not include talking to family/friends about the investigation before, during or after the investigation.."

**Now, let be clear that quote above is NOT in the jury instructions. It is my attempt to try to remember what this particular part said and describe it to you, so if anyone knows the part I talking about or if you have seen where the jury instructions are posted would you be kind enough to point me in the right direction? I'm talking about the specific jury instructions this jury received and not just the general outline. thank you to anyone that knows. :)

moo. moo. moo.

This is what I found on the matter.

ETA: Here is the post from TexasCharm yesterday (sorry lost the formatting, see link below for highlighting of the pertinent info):

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - **Verdict Watch** 3-2-2012; deliberations started at 1016am

"Ladies and Gentlemen, the fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects a citizen's right to refuse to answer questions of the police during a criminal investigation. The exercise of that constitutional right may not be used as eVidence against that citizen later at trial to create an inference of guilt. Therefore, the defendant's decision not to answer questions by law enforcement officers during the criminal investigation may not be considered against him as evidence of guilt to the
pending charge.

However, that same fifth Amendment does permit the jury to consider the defendant's refusal to answer police questions to the extent that the evidence surrounding that refusal bears upon the defendant's truthfulness if the defendant elects to testify or make a statement at a later time. The evidence presented in this case tends to show that the defendant elected to testify at a prior trial.

Therefore, I instruct you that you may consider evidence of the defendant's refusal to answer police questions during this investigation for one purpose only. If, considering the nature of that evidence, you believe that such evidence bears upon the defendant's truthfulness as a witness at his prior trial, then you may consider it for that purpose only. Except as it relates to the defendant's truthfulness, you may not consider the defendant's refusal to answer police questions as evidence of guilt in this case.

I also instruct you that this fifth Amendment protection applies only to police questioning.

__________________________________

He has a right not to answer questions. So they can't hold it against him that he didn't answer questions of the police.

There is no instruction on the fact that he made absolutely ZERO inquiries about the case. He could have ... SHOULD HAVE ... called LE every freakin' day to see if they were any closer to finding his wife's killer .... imo

Just sayin'

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - **Verdict Watch** 3-2-2012; deliberations started at 1016am
 
To do so would mean filing a police report and giving a recorded statement to the adjuster. The fact he did not is just another example of having something to hide.

I'm wondering why the fact that he did not pursue monetary gain after the murder is interpretted as meaning that he is guilty.
 
Nobody said he made the accident up out of thin air.
That e-mail did not detail a 'head injury" this man had.
The searches for these terms and not news of the actual accident, point more to something sinister. Who would search the term "knockout" after a car wreck?

Head blow knockout
Anatomy of a knockout
Head trauma blackout
"right posterior parietal occipital region" (back of the head)

Why not enter terms such as, "accident Highway 14 Oct 14" (highway and dates are mine only); just used for example purposes... Wouldn't that make more sense? That's what I would do.... Just sayin'..... Then when you find out more, go out and look for more specific injuries on this person. And no 911 call from him? I hope if I ever need a first responder that that person will call 911 and hold my hand. But that's just me...????
 
We've seen in a number of other investigations that police do not release privileged information to the family in order to protect the integrity of the investigation. Contacting police is useful in terms of keeping police actively involved with the case, but not for getting "privileged" information.

Jason didn't need to contact police to keep them on the case, he knew that they were on the case and we all know that Sheriff Donnie Harrison had a picture of Michelle on his desk at work; that he was not going to stop investigating until he had his man.

I totally disagree. His behavior towards LE went further than following his attorneys advice. It shows guilt to me. How could he resist not talking to the people that were looking for the killer? His self protection was more important than helping in ANY way with the investigation??? Don't buy it! Why not just go in and say give me a lie detector test so you can check me off the list and find who murdered my wife and son???? How could he not have ONE question for LE??? :moo:
 
I edited my post above with info I was searching for re: jury instructions.
 
Medical personnel would have had to testify as to the type of patients at the hospital, and we didn't hear any testimony from hospital employees.
.

Which is exactly why Michelle questioned Shelly Schaad about it. She is 'medical personnel'.
 
I am getting confused. So does the State think he meant to come there and strangle Michelle and something went wrong or he planned all along to beat her with a blunt object in her head?

IMO

There is evidence of attempted strangulation and evidence that after that failed, blunt force with a weapon occurred. Was he wearing size 10 shoes to strangle his wife, or was he wearing the size 12 hush puppies and switched to the size 10 shoes when strangulation failed?
 
This is funny .. bumbling police officer that was taking a statement regarding the hit and run that my daughter witnessed this morning drove off while she was writing her statement and ... he still has her driver's license. That's a bit like the bumbling officers that took photos of the bathroom but didn't put a ruler in the photo to give scale to the prints.
 
Which is exactly why Michelle questioned Shelly Schaad about it. She is 'medical personnel'.

Hospital intake should have testified regarding the type of patients admitted to hospital that day, not a friend of the witness's wife that works at a hospital.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
183
Guests online
1,485
Total visitors
1,668

Forum statistics

Threads
589,942
Messages
17,928,003
Members
228,009
Latest member
chrsrb10
Back
Top